Slashdot Mirror
Want a Science Degree In Creationism?
The Bad Astronomer writes "In Texas, a state legislator wants the ironically-named Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant a Masters degree in science. In fact, the bill submitted to the Texas congress would make it legal for any private group calling themselves educational to be able to grant advanced degrees in science. So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer."
The Institute for Creation Research made a similar request to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year, but were shot down.
I mean, real schools offer up degrees in philosophy, pottery, and basket weaving and who knows what.
Let's not throw stones so easily around here.
I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.
Why not? If you then get a job in a related field I have nothing to object. It's full of weirdos out there, some with a weirdo PhD would only be easily recognisable. However, I wouldn't be that happy if you chose to teach my children.
No sig is good enough for me.
I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.
Just no.
is the antithesis of science.
The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
There are many Deists in the scientific community. Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?
Stupid is as stupid does.
"TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
As someone from Texas, I would appreciate the name of the legislator in the summary.
And now that you have made me read TFA, it doesn't mention the legislators name either. I guess Mr. Bad Astronomer felt like taking this opportunity to bash Texas without actually helping people get something done.
How is this worse than any other diploma mill? At least Creationist U. probably has some course requirements (worthless as they may be). State accreditation is pretty meaningless on the whole.
... the guy who proposed this bill:
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=25464
and
http://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/censure-texas-state-representative-leo-berman/
When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.
So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.
Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.
Yes, I would like the courses for Pharmaceutical, Locksmithing, Gun Repair...
Oh, and the parole board thinks I should get the degree in Creationism...
That's right, send the material to Rikers...
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!
I'll make a fortune off the gullible who believe in every kind of pseudo-reality!
I'll have leprechaun pots full of gold fast!
*insert evil laugh here*
Science? Well, it's like science, but not science. Why not take a leaf out of the Sci-Fi channel and call it "Creation Syence".
That should eliminate any possible confusion with actual science.
To all the people that already answered saying that it is people right to have a degree in Creationism, you are missing the point. The problem here is not the degree per se (there are already Theology advanced degree courses), but calling it a *Science* degree. Creationism is not science, and should not be equated to one. It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science".
I know you know this, but please believe not all Christians are this dumb. Most christians are honest thoughtful individuals who work hard, volunteer, and contribute positively to society. And further, when oil peaks and busts, we'll be happy we still have the Churches out there to help care for the sudden and temporary rush of poverty across the nation. That is what the church is for, helping people who are in need. Not Creationism. And most christians would agree with me.
I've given up on Slashdot's comment scores.
Now let's say Institute for Creation Research gets to give out Masters degrees in "Creation Science", what would then stop us from creating "The Douchebag Univerity of Texas" and give out advance degrees in douchebaggery?
Just think of all the great HONORARY DEGREES you could hand out, starting with the douchebags who proposed and support this legislation!
"The Scientific Method is the only way to know anything at all."
"Can you use the Scientific Method to justify that claim?"
"No."
Disappears in a Poof of Logic.
I've given up on Slashdot's comment scores.
I think this is great. It'll be so much easier to weed out the idiots when hiring to fill a position for our organization. Anyone who has their degree from this Institute of Creationism listed on their CV will be suitably tcanned.
So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer.
I miss the old Chaoseum. I have a couple polo shirts, alumni association mug, auto stickers (including the parking lot passes), multiple T-shirts and the Bachelors and Masters (Medieval Metaphysics) kits from "Old Misk". It was my understanding they got the word to cool it or they might get charged with being a diploma mill? At an IT training about a decade ago I was wearing the Miskatonic U, Dept of Astrology polo shirt and the instructor asked me, "Your university doesn't really have a department of astrology, does it?"
As for Texas, or Oklahoma or much of the South and Midwest, I've been saying on the political blogs that if Chuck Norris wants to lead a secession, let him. Give Bubba a reservation to run free so the rest of us can get on with progress -- and we can deny them visas to return.
Get these fucking idiots out of our government, please.
Once you start shoveling out these bogus degrees, you get a pool of right wing religious nuts with 'credentials' that make them look like reasonable candidates for educational boards or other public offices. You can be sure that they won't provide any detail on where they got the degree in their campaigning, and the voting public will not be interested enough to check themselves.
"Oh look, Jebus McFearhim Phd is running for the Texas State Board of Education. That's just the kind of learned individual we need."
> want a degree in alchemy?
Some already have that!
Hito wa nanika no gisei nashi ni, nani mo eru koto wa dekinai.
Nanika wo eru tame ni wa, doutou no daika ga hitsuyou ni naru.
Sore ga, renkinjutsu ni okeru touka koukan no gensoku da.
Sono koro, bokura wa sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjiteita.
English translation:
Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return.
To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.
That is Alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange.
In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
My hard earned Masters put in the same bucket as these clowns by some dumbfuck politician... way to go. :(
You can't even argue that creationism is a serious religious line of study. A good religious study is, at least in christian tradition, is deeply prayerful and meditative. It's a rejection of the flesh to try and understand the soul. It's not about this world, but the other. Becoming focused on the making of the earth and engaging in so called scientific debate as creationism does actually misses the point of religion in general and Christ in particular.
Jesus doesn't care how old the earth is. It's here, and its a sufficient vehicle within Christianity for us to make our moral choices. Arguing whether or not its some age or another only serves to deflect from the purpose of a devout Christian's life - to live in accordance with the words of Jesus as son of god. IF Christ would have wanted us to worry about the earth, he would have given us a geologists report on the mount, rather than a sermon.
I would almost argue that creationism is actually satanic!
This is my sig.
This gives the rest of the world one more reason to giggle at us. I mean, really.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
As always, and far too often, I am making my regular anti-evolutionary post to a pro-evolution writeup on Slashdot.
The evidence disproving evolution is so strong and conclusive, it is pretty much a proven fact that it is incorrect. The people that try so hard to expose the communistic conspiracy against it are all held as loonies, as the general public have been brainwashed all too well.
The evidence for creationism is strong, and most of the stuff you think you know about it is likely wrong.
See http://www.bcmin.us/main/?q=node/31
I would be interested in a doctorate in Dianetics or Scientology. After all, it is all based on science. Isn't it?
I just screamed "WTF" out loud, while i'm alone. I'm trying to describe a emotion here, since words can't possibly describe how insane this is !
Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!
--
make install -not war
by Anonymous Coward I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious. http://library.bpeer.com/movie/
That's just oxymoronic!
But seriously, isn't this like getting a medical degree for murder?
I assume that those that are not creationist typically believe in evolution. I do not believe evolution is any more of a science than the study of creation. Evolution is something that many claim takes millions or more of years. If that is the case, how many scientist have lived that long in order to literally observe what happens during that time? Science is based on observation, and we cannot go back and time and observe how things came into being. We can take measurements now and try to infer some properties of what may have happened, but it is not the same thing as observing what actually happened.
PhD is not equal to "job". No one will hire these clowns, except other clowns. And since everyone hates clowns, grouping them all together is win-win, especially if they all move to Texas.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
...are disgusted with this crap. The creationism shit is stirred up by an extreme right-wing group of legislators that don't represent the entire state (but are obviously voted in by some very ignorant Texans). The /. headline makes it appear that we're like...well, like Kansas or something. I'm a high school teacher, and most teachers I know think this creationism movement is a farce.
That said, it's important to understand that the bill is simply working to exempt "private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board's authority." The Coordinating Board would have the final say in determining whether science courses from this institution would be counted towards teacher certification requirements. At this point, THECB demonstrates no inclination towards allowing this to happen.
This all appears to be a lot of grandstanding by a right-wing nutcase.
I'll have a MS in suicide bombing with a minor in maximizing civilian casualties.
Pendulum swings, boys!
I can now get the degree I've always wanted: a FSM Studies Science Degree
I just loved learning about His Noodly Appendage in high school and I want to pursue a higher education with a focus on Him.
All you nay sayers! Take notice there will be even more REAL scientist with science degrees now! The FSM will show us the way to true science and with it there will be no doubt. Because after all, we will have a degree to prove it.
MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.
Either way, you're getting stoned!
In other news, anarchists demand a more structured government with stricter law enforcement.
"A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
There are three problems with this idea.
First, whatever your opinion of "poppycock" degrees, they are drastically different from this degree in creationism. A few examples:
Degree in Religion: You have studied and become an expert on the social phenomenon known as religion. You have studied a number of different religions. This degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of history, philosophy, and anthropology.
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
Creationism: Creationism 'science' is essentially a list of poorly constructed arguments that attempt to refute evolution. The main requirement for any argument on this list is that they are 'convincing' rather than being accurate. There is no academic rigor to this field.
Creationism does not compare to other religious degrees.
Second, Creationism is currently operating under the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They don't actually want to be 'accepted', they just want to grab as many headlines as possible. They want big, showy, and silly public debates with well-respected scientists. They don't want to sit down in a lab and prove anything. i.e. Creationists frequently argue that if you place an organism in observation and wait thousands of generations, that organism will not evolve new features. However, no creationist has even attempted to demonstrate this fact. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to attempt. However, actual scientists have done this experiment and dedicated a massive amount of time to the work. They were rewarded with the exact opposite of the creationists predictions. If you want to know more about this research, please visit :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
The third, and biggest problem with Creationism is that it is a concept, not a field of study. You don't grant degrees in 'ideas'. We don't have a degree for perpetual motion machines, proving Goldbach's conjecture, or any other crackpottery you can imagine. A degree is rewarded for a field of study. What exactly are Creationists going to study?
I am not opposed to this "Degree in Creationism" in the same way I am opposed to Creationism. I want to admit that I think Creationism is absurd. However, I am even more opposed to a degree in creationism for the reasons stated above. I would be equally opposed to a degree is Deism, Skepticism, or any other idea I believe in.
I think I'd rather have a creationism degree than a Commerce Degree, mostly because when you are bullshitting with a creationism degree, there are many suckers who fall for it, even during an economic downturn. If you have a commerce degree, even if you are telling the truth, many people think you are just bullshitting, especially at times like these.
What is it with religious zealots that makes them bumber then a rock with a lobotomy?
The smarter mankind seems to get, the more idiots that crawl out of the woodwork.
Lincoln gets the credit for saying you can call a cow a horse but it is still a cow. Or as another source said: calling a pig a pineapple doesnâ(TM)t make it sweet and juicy and finally - how many people even know what the word scientia means?
So coming off as a bunch of jerks is how we do it in science now. Typically when I back science, I try to do it with facts and not as an ass. All your doing in that case is alienating any valid point you may have. I am not a fan of the grade level learning system in Texas, it does need an overhaul. Standardized tests need to go away. But the way many of you are acting is like a bunch of clowns. Every single state gets their stupid legislation and the majority of the time it doesn't pass. Texas has a fairly balance legislature Dem - Rep, which is great, neither side gets to ramrod stuff through. As for you idiot's saying 'uhoh I'm about to go to Texas for my Ph.D.'. By all means please go to another state. Texas has a great higher learning system. I learned phenomenal amounts of useful information from my University. I am ashamed to call myself a scientist when surrounded by people who act like the guy at discovermagazine. How soon we forget what happened when the big dog at Helios in Austin trashed the teachers union. What happened? The only people he won over was part of the linux community. He pissed off the other 90% of the population. Sadly, instead of the people at discovermagazine using their brain to formulate a valid argument, they go and insults half the state of Texas. Good job......morons. You'll only help getting stupid legislation like this passed acting like that. Flame away.
Come off it - the people demanding the ability to grant degrees in "Creation Science" are the ones trolling the rest of the country, and trying to ruin the educatio system.
I have a better idea - if they get this "right" - get the degree, then publish about how creationism is total bullshit, and point to your "credentials" as someone with an "advanced degree in creation science." Make $$$ selling books, appearances on the idiot box/faux news, etc.
I have an even better idea - let them move to Jebus-land. What the rising waters don't get, global warming-driven hurricanes and droughts will. Problem solved.
Since when does Texas have a congress? Last I checked, the term was "legislature".
Why don't I trust Kent Hovind?
I'm all over that. Odin, Vili, and Ve killed the giant Ymir and made the world from him, using his blood, flesh, hair, bones and teeth for the lakes, earth, trees, mountains and pebbles, respectively. It'd be a fine thing to be able to further our science of these great deeds.
However, the summary mentioned astrology. I'd like to a double major, but avoid the hard sciences for the second major and do something like economics or pro-wrestling instead.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
My friend who studied communications has a Bachelor of Science degree, and I who studied computer science have a Bachelor of Arts degree. A quick google showed that both are fairly common.
I once had a signature.
Hey, let's start Star Fleet Academy in Texas!
If I dressed up like Quark, could I get my ears rubbed?
"I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma."
...they are both the "brain child" of humans. They are both pretty persistent, none of them has managed to eliminate the other. I don't really mind that they are both here. I am not trying to get a frontal lobotomy to get rid of thoughts that I may see "stupid" or whatever label may apply. I enjoy the fact, that humans can come up with so many theories, concepts, visions, hallucinations or whatever sensations our brain can produce. I can see no reason to put limits on this huge variety and I refuse the idea that anyone should claim the authority to force me to limit what I can, want to think, "sense", etc. I don't care if the "authority" to attempt to do it called science or religion or anything else.
No. Because in order to perform an experiment, you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis.
Creationism cannot form a falsifiable hypothesis because EVERY outcome could be "proven" by the words "God wanted it that way".
That is why it is not science.
That would depend upon what you mean by "religions".
I think you're confusing historical evidence with science. In order for it to be science, It must be able to be stated in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis that can be test by different scientists.
I equate Creationism to the Chewbacca Defense...
I hate to break it to you sophomores but the fact that so-called "creationists" have their cranks that insist on the literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't mean you can just dismiss the field.
Seastead this.
I propose a degree in Religious Engrineering. Here are example test questions:
Religious Engineering midterm exam. 5 questions, 60 minutes. You can use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In all questions, assume that Jesus is perfectly spherical and has an uniform density of G. Parying during the exam is forbidden.
1. (20 pts)
Adam and Bob are at rest. God loves them equally (L-0). Subsequently, Adam accelerates to 0.9c. From the point of view of Bob, how much more does God love Adam?
2. Stephan, a Catholic, is in a state of sanctifying grace. After some time he has an intercourse with a sheep S.
a) (8 pts) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S consented?
b) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S didn't consent, but it couldn't be said it had something against it?
3. (20 pts) The Holy Spirit's eternal, all-encompasing love is in the XY plane. The soul of Sue is at (0,0,5) at t = 0s, and its velocity vector is (0,0,5) m/s. The model was constructed according to rational positivism typical of the Enlightenement period. At what time tS will Sue's soul achieve salvation? (Hint: assume that souls are point-like).
4. (20 pts) Assume that the Ascension happens at the time t. Cameron, a saved human being in the state of sanctifying grace, at the time t has her head crushed in the jaws of an alligator. Calculate the mass of meat left for the alligator at the time t + 10s.
5. Isaac is a frictionless Jew of uniform density at rest. For his faith level, his sin factor is 11 Moseses. He subsequently eats 300 grams of pork, and he enjoys it. For this question, assume that Jews are always right.
a) (10 pts) What is Isaac's sin factor after eating the pork?
b) (10 pts) What is Isaac's heritage adjusted sin factor if he's from the tribe of Judah?
Bonus question.
25 g of wafer and 20 ml of cheap wine undergo transsubstatiation to become the flesh and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Calculate the amount of heat that is liberated during this process, in joules.
(note: originally this was a Polish text by an anonymous author)
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
Please give me a scientific experiment that can hold up to the Scientific Method that is in direct relationship to Creationism.
Oh, and the final answer cannot be God, since God does not exist on this plane of existence and thus God's existence cannot be proved nor disproved. And you will also lose points for say that because the eye is complex, there must be a creator. Give me an actual experiment that can pass the scientific method peer review please.
a MD in Witchcraft, Unviersity of Salem?
I don't understand why Christians resort to such histrionics to combat science on science's terms.
Want a retort to evolution? Here's one: God created it. He created earth, made it look 4+ billion years old, added fossils, plate tectonics, bosons, whatever you want. Why does this discussion always require God to start the game at the beginning? He started in the middle. He's all powerful.
Now, this "answer" doesn't advance our understanding of the world any. But maybe it will give us some peace and quiet.
Now we'll have more people to torture for their stupidity! I can't wait until it passes!
But it looks like I can't move the kids to Texas anymore. They're technically virgins, and entering into crazyland would make them eligible for religious sacrifice.
(Note: I'm not always this bitter. I just hate stupid people who try to force ideas to be true which are obviously incorrect.)
Just like Doctor Nick!
-- QED
The one good thing about Creationism is that it forces teachers to present the scientific method to the students at a much earlier age. Often the nuts and volts of the skepticism that is the core process of science is skipped over in schools.
Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.
Children will say that the earth was created in six days, 4000 years ago. Well we weren't there to witness this. But we can show records and artifacts (ones that weren't stolen from the Baghdad museum) that are over 4000 years old.
Creationism forces teachers to instill a spirit of skepticism in students. "I don't believe you, prove it" mentality that is more important that the facts themselves.
Every time something like this is posted on /. everyone get in a huge flame war debating the virtues and consistencies of Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design. Anyone promoting evolution or debunking creationism often gets modded up, however anyone arguing for creationism often gets modded down.
I'm a creationist, a Christian, and I just ask that we teach both in schools since it is an ongoing scientific debate. Let the children decide for themselves through providing pro's/con's of both sides.
This always reminds me of the episode in V where the aliens rounded up all the scientific community under the guise of protecting humanity from their meddling views. Same thing going on here, fundamentalists don't want you investigating the how and why of things, they want you to do as you're told.
*DrugCheese rants*
... we allow an unlimited amount of H-1B visas, you can teach your kids anything you want. I just need to hire competent people for my business. I don't care where they come from.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why would any "evolusionist" to use the articles words, be making any predictions on the magnetic fields of other planets? What does biological evolution have to do with the magnetic field on mercury, and why would a biologist be making predictions regarding the magnetic field on mercury based on evolutionary principles?
Rather suitably, the catpcha for this post is acolytes.
I am writing the beginnings of a new Open Source scripture that will be regarded as the 'word of god' in a few years, after the Internet population has finished editing it.
The license will restrict development to the trunk, forbidding forks and branches.
... till they find the god particle
Then it will be a man created god too.
Thus, teaching Evolution exclusively is essentially forcing their children to admin that the 7-day universe is false
The literal "7-day creation" is a fringe view even within Christianity. The vast majority of Christians and Christian denominations (foremost, the Catholic church) have no problem with evolutionary theory. Furthermore, the fact that creation took longer than seven days is established in physics as well, quite independently from biology.
So, please don't buy into the bullshit of these "creation scientists": first, they do not represent Christianity or a Christian point of view, and second, this isn't evolution vs creationism, it's all of science vs creationism.
How about a CPU with a creationist instruction set that runs Windows Creationist or Creationist Linux?
The mouse might respond after you tell it what you believe it should do. There is no way of defining one concrete result.
If you believe, and there is no God, nothing happens to you - this is the existential viewpoint. If you disbelieve, and there is a God, you are screwed - this is the religious viewpoint.
On it's face of Pascal's Wager it may seem safe to believe in "God", the problem comes in what "God" should someone believe in. If you pick the wrong "God" you're up shit creek just as much as if you don't believe. Especially if the religion comes from Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Their "God" is a jealous god. Didn't Moses smash the Ten Commandments tablet when he came down from the mount and saw the people worshiping a bull statute of the Egyptian god? Weren't the Jews then required to wander the wilderness for years before being led to the Promised Land?
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
That's how I try to look at it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
One thing though is that, one day we might actually be able to prove that God does not exist.
No amount of proof will satisfy Creationists, Fundamentalists, and others. They can fall back on "well that's the way god made it."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
They already have advanced degrees for Creationism...
They are called either Doctor of Theology or Doctor of Philosophy.
I'm not a hardcore opponent to Creationism, I simply just don't think it is going anywhere as a science. It doesn't prove anything or predict anything. Its just a retcon to make stuff look like the Bible or whatever creation story is out there.
Having said that, I see no reason why it could not be real, the problem is that if you can't test it or predict anything with it... IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
That said, certainly there is nothing keeping a real scientist from working on theories and hypotheses that prove or expand upon Creationism. However, I think the real issue here is that the lack of results does not mean that you can really accredit someone as a scientist with it. They may well someday be able to make use of Creationism... somehow... but until that day, they can't really call it a science.
So, this is some guy who is trying to appropriate credentials for his side where they don't apply.
Having said that, I will continue to point out that this is one of the dangers of involving science too closely in the deist-atheist debate. One side or the other is going to appropriate scientific credentials to prop up their unprovable belief systems, and its going to do so at the detriment of science itself.
Typical American politics. If you can't buy someone off, buy off their superior.
I think the real question is not who is right or wrong, the real question is whether the morality that Christianity teaches is even remotely defensible. While it's nice that Christians agree with the rest of us that murder and theft are bad things, the core of their morality is that moral behavior is based on rules handed down from a higher authority.
I find that unacceptable as a basis for morality, and so do many other religions. In fact, both gnostics and Satanists view the Christian God as either confused or evil, and they are making a reasonable case for that view.
From one of those pages linked to: 'The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters' (Matthew 12:30). Any "God" who requires faith in order to be "saved" is sadistic.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And far too many schools offer degrees in computer science that amount to basket weaving. At my school there seems to be a habit of the instructors writing the answers to the assignments on the board (yes, before the assignments are due). And passing in programming assignments on paper?
This does make it easier for the vast majority of students, but way less interesting and educational for the rest of us. And the huge number of students graduating from the program with 3.7+ can't be helping my job prospects once employers see where I graduated from.
How on earth do you get a PhD in creationism? The whole point of creationism is that it is grounded in biblical literalism. To get a PhD you are supposed to make a substantial contribution to the field, which seems to be at odds with the idea of creationism.
Now, I think one should be able to get a PhD in other (existing, humanities and sciences) fields by providing an authoritative study of mythological patterns in Genesis 1-3 as well as textual constructions, philology, structural anthropology, etc. But that is hardly the same thing as a PhD in creationism. Even if you could get a PhD equivalent in creation theology, the proper venue is as a doctor of divinity.
I say this having made substantial contributions to the field of practical rune-magic.
Although I think Robert Zoller certainly does deserve an honorary PhD for his work on topics related to astrology (whether it is through the philosophy department or the history department is a question for others). However his contributions, discussing the Renaissance significance of the Arabic Parts, their roots in Neo-Platonism and the relationship between neo-Platonism in the Middle-East and that in the West, etc. is groundbreaking both from a historical and a practical perspective. Similarly his work looking at Scandinavian sky lore is extremely interesting.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism.
In no way, shape, or form are agnosticism and atheism equivalent. Agnostic is "a", without and "gnosis" knowledge, "without knowledge". Atheism on the other hand is "a", without and "theism" belief in a god, ie there is no god, or "God". I am an agnostic, meaning I do not know if a god exists, but I certainly want to know one way or the other. Whereas Agnostics are open minded Atheists are not.
In the beginning, of Christianity, there were Christians who were the same and didn't believe in a god, Agnostic Christians. The early churches though persecuted them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
... I don't care if God exists. IMO, too much time, money and energy has been wasted on the topic. Time to move on.
If you post it, they will read.
So you can still not believe in something, but still say that it might exist and we don't know, huh?
Exactly. Up until the existence or non-existence of a god is proven I will neither believe in the existence or non-existence of one. The same applies to the spirit or soul.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
As an atheist, I wasn't aware that proving the absence of something was a requirement. I had assumed that non-existence was the default assumption, and that if there is any burden of proof it falls on someone willing to entertain a hypothesis that asserts existence of something.
This description would be more correct to say is Agnostic than Atheistic. Agnostics don't know but believe a god may exist. Atheists come right out and say a god does not exist. One is open minded and the other is just as closed minded as Fundamentalists.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
While I am all for allowing people to believe in many things -- when one operates in a manner which attempts to "institutionalize" stupidity there I have to draw the line. I have up on one of my web pages the discussion for the DVD "The God who wasn't there". Until we have some scientific evidence that there is some real evidence for Jesus as he is portrayed then the entire basis for Christianity is questionable and secondarily the Bible itself (and therefore Judaism) is hearsay collection of myths. And since the Muslim philosopy is based on those two backgrounds is it not subject to serious question?
And now that I've offended most of the world -- go ahead and mod me down.
When are we going to get a perspective/philosophy based on a modern (real) understanding of the Universe and not based in some ancient collection of relics and myths? And more importantly when is a majority of humanity -- some 6+ billion people -- going to be educated in that perspective? We have been stuck with these perspectives for 1300+, 2000+, 3000+ years. When do we say never again?
That's just a clever mildly clever rhetorical trick. Your statement presupposes that there is a "prime mover" (otherwise there simply [b]is[/b] no "why"). There is no evidence of any such prime mover.
HAND.
Creation science/creationism/ID theory is not:
Creationists or proponents of intelligent design base their ideas on a few readily observable phenomena (or lack thereof), some of which are:
ID proponents presuppose that every physical phenomena will not necessarily have a naturalistic/material cause & explanation. Most ID scholars acknowledge evolutionary principles (genetic drift, natural selection, "microevolution") but reject common ancestry based on a lack of demonstrable evidence (no real consensus on phylogeny, spotty/inconsistent fossil record, true speciation never observed). Creationists also assert that an unobserved, unreproducible event (abiogenesis) is as inherently unscientific as invoking a creator-god or other supernatural phenomena for origin of life. Evolution (change) is scientific and observable but the keystone event that common ancestry relies on is inherently unscientific, just like the assumption that "god did it." Both theories seek to explain events that we cannot reproduce or observe. My point is, this debate becomes metaphysical/philosophical/theological (or at least unscientific) no matter which side of the tracks we find ourselves on.
*waits for flames/mods down*
So what do they really think?
While I agree that it shouldn't be a science degree, I think there is enough philosophy/social studies to make a reasonable case for a MA, or DPhil out of the topic.
Wow. Slashdot isn't as full of Christian haters as it was when I left a few years back. I might have to start investing more time here.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
... that has to be some seriously powerful Kool Aide.
Any of the so-called "prophesies come true" which I've ever come across are so vague as to be useless (i.e. you can fit almost anything to the "prophecy"). They're akin to Nostradamus' "prophecies".
So, if you're going to argue please name some actual "prophesies come true" which you think stand up to scrutiny and we'll take it from there.
A man wonders whether sex is permitted on the sabbath. So he goes and asks the priest whether sex is work and thus prohibited on the Sabbath. The priest consults the Bible and concludes that it is. The man is not entirely satisfied by this because he is unsure whether a celebate man is the right person to give him this advice, so he asks a protestent minister. The minister consults the Bible and concludes that it is work and is thus prohibited on the Sabbath. Just to get one final opinion, the man goes and asks a rabbi.
The rabbi sits and thinks about the matter for a moment and says "Of course it is is not work!"
The man asks the rabbi how he can be so sure given the views from two other learned religious men, and he answers "If sex were work, my wife would have the maid do it."
Moral of the story is that arguments from authority aren't really all that great. If your belief in creationism is because of what is written in the Bible, that is fundamentally different from an argument based on experiments and tests concerning available data. While it is quite possible to believe that God created the world and used evolution as a means to create humanity, this is different from trying to choose bible vs science.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It looks like a village in Texas got its idiot back.
Part of my family lore is the story of an ancestor who worked on writing the King James Bible. Apparently my ancestor's version of a Psalm was rejected in favor of another's. There are a lot of people who base their beliefs on "The Bible" who think there is just one Bible, their Bible, with no controversy between versions.
I am against the death penalty but: using the word "science" and "creationism" in one and the same sentence should get shot immediately and without warni...
!£&*^*#& CARRIER LOST.
For all you argue against Christianity by bringing up Genesis 1 saying that the
earth was created in six days, you should also read 2 Peter 3:8 which says that
God's perception of time is very different to ours.
From there we can assume that each of those days consist of whatever amount of
time it took to get the earth to a particular point.
Also genuine religious belief requires a measure of scepticism.
What is the practical difference between science and religion with respect to determining truth?
Observe this handy flowchart.
How about Scientists and their Labs getting TAX Free status. :D Fair's fare... eh?
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
I thought in the U.S., anyone could grant any degrees they like, and it was up to various private accrediting organizations to decide whether or not to accredit them. Since when did the government get to say who can and can't issue degrees? Aren't there First Amendment issues here?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Giving an advanced science degree with creationism is like duct taping Charles Manson and the head of the Satanist church and making them the next Catholic Pope.... No matter how you stack it, creationism (even when search & replaced with intelligent design) is NOT science and can't be used for accreditation of an advanced science degree.
./
That's Texas for you.
> I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days.
That's easy!
> Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.
That's dangerous. I'll leave that to the LHC team...
Who cares? I mean - really - you can get a fake degree based on "Your life-experience" or any number of junk bits of paper.
The fact is that when you go for a job someplace waving your Ph.D in Creationism - the people offering the job are going to have a really good laugh at your expense. The only job you're going to be able to get will be working for the Creation Research center.
Think of this as "educational Darwinism" - those with degrees in junk subjects will be rapidly eliminated from the business gene-pool.
Meh.
www.sjbaker.org
George Walker Bush
Richard Cheney ;) sorry I just could not resist.
On a darker note, the state of Texas, is the laughing stock of the world economy ... not to mention ... anything else for that matter, like Mike Dell and Dell Computer. What a "Butt Joke" they are!
Or actually Bachelor of Arts (or Fine Arts) in Theology. That is a more appropriate terminology.
New Economic Perspectives
Degrees in Creationism? That sounds awesome to me. I'm going to fund my own college now and sell degrees in God Doesn't Exist. I'm sure all those crazy maladjusted kids these days will eat that $hit up and I'll be very wealthy soon enough. And after that, I'll get really drunk and make some 'for mass-market' motivational tapes like L. Ron Hubbard and tell all the children my ideas about god and how he's on your shoulder and you have to take him off your shoulder before you go into a building and thats really all you have to do and they'll listen to that too. Eventually they'll be so advanced (having followed my teachings) that they'll find the most likely spot of my birth or death and scrape some sort of primitive DNA which will then be reconstituted and blended with the gammetes of a half Asian albino, half Viking warrior and become my second coming. Of course they wouldn't know that I never existed and it was my half brother Karl (who was a little more than half retarded) that the seed had come from. But hey, whatever makes you happy...
Creationism the same as alchemy or astrology? You can study science inside a universe created by a Creator. If you believe that the universe was created in this manner, that does not negate science or mean that you do not study science.
That statement about alchemy and astrology shows that whoever wrote the story is stupid because, as an atheist, it believes that anyone who doesn't see the world the same way as it is an idiot. The real idiot is the atheist. There's a billboard near my house that reads: Atheist: Someone who believes that nothing made everything: A scientific impossibility!
Ok... so, lemme see if i got it right. Some religious enthusiast (probably catholic) wants to "create" some "we know where it all came from" thing... that ll actually give ppl the chance of gettin a degree in faith? For cryin out loud, how exactly are they gonna come up with an answer for, well, lets say a hindu kid, budist, even jewish, go to class everyday thinkin their parents and heritage have real answers (again, small kids) for all of the universe questions and this "certified beliveInGodKnowsWhat" ll tell em that they studied the science that isnt really sciense cuz its based on none logical facts.... or facts at all... completely messin these kids minds with questions they should b askin themself in a couple of years... So.. wheres the benefit? Are they trying to make ppl convert to a standard religion?... u kno.. white beared kinda god thing? Ridiculous. I d luv to attend one of those classes, just cant picture some "professor" sayin> "well, lets see.. am... Mr. Smith, do you know the answer for this equation? Where do we come from?.- Mr Smith: well... im thinking God, but i couldnt make my homework last nite i was busy feedin all o my 25 children"... In my opinion Religion is the unlogical logical response from the human brain to unanswered questions. But i understand the fact that it does help ppl on rough times. Again... religion should just stay as religion, a way of life, filosophy, call it whatever u like, but its definetly NOT "science" material. Just try thinkin about it the other way around, what if Nikola Tesla founded the "Church of Alternalcurrentism... am... church", based on what exactly d he huv the nurv to come up with sth as ridiculous as that! Well, just my opinion, dont get p1ssed ;)
Go an let em all give them peppers with the fancy larnin! I mean if ma & pa kettle can grant PhD's in larnin', then whots ta stop less larned folks frum gittn all fard up smarkt and givn' out pepper lak its made frum treez? Weez cud agive our houn' dawg, stumpy, wun a them PhDees in humpin' the cat or somethin' coudin we? Kat don lak it none, but ol' stumpee he jus tare afer thhe kat lak nobodees bisness, corner em and hav hes way. Kat skreems an skretches at dawg, but wunce stumpee haz a hankerin to go, thar ain nothin stoppen em. I sez we go and giv'em wun-a-them pHdees. Pepper shore luuk pertty, excep for when he gits thet doggie juce on et.
I've started to prepare to get my genuine Texas certified Masters in Divinity from FSMU when this bill passes. I figure if I learn a few Latin phrases (like "modus operandi", "carpe diem" and "e pluribus unum") that should suffice. For those interested in the FSMU campus, it's located just east of Palistine on the banks of the beautiful Trinity River. The school motto is "In Noodles We Trust", the schools fight song is "A Sauce we can Believe in", and the school mascot is cheesily named Harry Meatballs. It's a laid back kind of campus, with a gin mill in the Student Union Building and the diploma mill on the east bank of the river. When I get my Masters from FSMU I can start my own church in Kansas, bash gays, and be totally tax free in the process.
As a Creationist, I have to agree with you: Creationism --the assertion that God, who has always existed and who designed and created all things and all lifeforms, cannot be declared "science" because Creationism cannot be studied. No testing can be performed, and we can only guess how and when the creation event occurred. It is not repeatable as we are not gods
Translation: I'm a creationist, I believe an unprovable god created the world. I know this belief is irrational and wrong but my parents and school kept repeating it over and over so it just sunk in. I wish i had the strength to be rational like you guys but I'm scared my god will punish me if I don't believe in him.
the Hogwarts Academy. All other schools (especially those in Texas) are unable to provide the evidence based approach to a 4000 year old earth due to fraudulent technicians.
It's mail-order degrees they're trying to push, not science.
Actually we are not create anything, we just discover it.
This "Institute for Creation Research" is a funny looking 'academic' institute from a look over its website.
The link "Departments" has sections like "Online Store" "Press" and "About ICR". Very odd. My university has 'departments' like "Faculty of Arts" "Business School" and "Department of Maths and Computing".
I wonder what type of courses they teach in their listed 'departments'? This is not the kind of academic institution I am familiar with...
... regional accreditation bodies in the US and international accreditation bodies like NARIC will not recognise the crazee religious or otherwise fake educational institutions.
So you will have someone with a MSc that isn't worth an MSc compared to anu worthwhile Uni'.
If you look at degrees in Pakistan (for example), most Bachelors degrees are only worth a Certificatke in HE or a Diploma in HE because the curriculums have so much religion in them you cannot fairly compare four years at University in Pakistan to four years elsewhere.
Looks like some Uni's in Texas are just the same, LOL
What do you think scientology is!
They want to submit themselves to government and academic bureaucracy? If there is any way to sap their energy and effectiveness this is it. Amen!
I finally can install the PHD course for mantra singing and acting enlightened!
If the teacher is an Andromeden (preferably female), i'm in ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWvW3T84SiU
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
Is not that possible? An ID sets the wheels in motion and the rest is evolution. After all we are on the verge of becoming ID ourselves... Well, the "I" part is debatable, but the "D" is not out of question. If we can (almost) do it, why should not it have happened before? Its turtles all the way down, young man...
Science doesn't really follow Occam's Razor, particularly in evolutionary biology. Many processes are not parsimonious. Go look up systematics, or look at some phylogenetic trees made with modern methods (e.g. Bayesian inference or maximum likelihood, not maximum parsimony). Occam's Razor will fail you.
Is the Institute for Creation Research arguing that it is being selected against? Why are they so eager to admit they are wrong with respect to the very essence of the does evolution occur debate?
Actually, I hope this passes. I'm thinking about starting a Ph.D. program in political witchcraft. Students would study how to use witchcraft to affect the political process. They would receive, after intensive course work, of course, detailed instructions on how to cast spells over politicians. If you know anything about Texas politics, and as this article demonstrates, its obvious that such a program is desperately needed.
The Institute for Creation Research has been awarding degrees for decades; they merely moved from here (California) to there (Texas). Shame on you. I've a better idea--instead of mocking others, how about if you actually read some of their stuff. Or do you fear finding out they are much more educated and knowledgeable on the topic than you are. You have set up such a pretty illusion for yourself, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't want to leave it. (BTW, they were opposed in their California accreditation by the state Superintendent who later went to jail for thinking he was all that.)
Cranky educator.
In essence this legislation allows non-profit entities exposing anti-science philosophy to grant state sanctioned degrees in science. This would give such degrees legal standing equivalent to any other science degree program. This would then legally permit religious institutions to teach religion as science and replace scientists in science classrooms of the state with persons, who have no more knowledge or expertise in the scientific process than witchdoctors or political hacks.
This legislation is simply political cover to impose the teaching of religion as science. To say that this wouldn't be a bad idea ignores the fact that the consequences for scientific education in the United States would be catastrophic (since, most states recognize other states laws in reciprocal agreements).
The hiring process at state supported universities and colleges across the country would be thrown into paralysis as lawyers argue discrimination suits brought from both sides. Scientific departments and scientific collaboration would be torn apart by the open warfare between those that support science and those that support teaching religion as science, taking time away from those who actually want to conduct science. Its one thing for those battles to be waged on the airwaves, in print, and on web forums and quite another should we allow them to be carried out within the institutions charged with teaching, doing, and promoting science.
This legislation is little more than a another hand-grenade tossed into science departments around the country by anti-science crusaders to destroy the foundation of science in the United States. Al Qieda annd the Taliban couldn't do better.
We live in a world where the economic and political consequences of environmental catastrophe are pushing what remains of the biosphere needed to support human life to the breaking point. This is largely being done by people who refuse to accept scientific explanations for such changes because they conflict with their political ambitions, economic interests, or religious views and those who are simply ignorant, for one reason or another, of scientific studies that are relevant to these issues. The notion of "getting creationism in line with current scientific thought" is a lot like hoping the cockroaches will solve the problems that humanity seems too busy creating rather than solving. While some are "debating" whether they will be able to crank up their air-conditioners high-enough to feel comfortable in the future, many agronomists are already beginning to predict that a 4-5 deg C global temperature rise may make most contemporary agricultural practices on the planet unsustainable. Scientists are beginning to appreciate that what remains of tropical rain forests that permit us to take our next breath for granted may be nearly completely changed to scrub grasslands in as little as 100 years because of aridification. Water resource scientists are telling us that most countries will run out of fresh water resources in the next 50 years as glaciers recede into oblivion. In the US, agriculture in the largest agricultural state, California is being curtailed dramatically because of the lack of water. Texas is drying as well and many former range-lands no longer will support cattle. Likewise, marine biologists are becoming aware of the extent and rapidity at which the oceans are acidifying. The consequences to world protein budgets are large enough that the populations of ENTIRE countries may face protein starvation in as few as 100 years given present accelerating decline in ocean pH.
Folks, we are simply running out of time. Most have no idea of the scale of human-induced perturbations nor the almost certain consequences humans will face regardless of their religion as a result of these perturbations.
We must keep in mind that having an environment to support human life is not something that we can afford to leave to religious opinion. Its no longer something that we can indefinitely take for granted. The usefulness
There would be many in industry and at religious institution that would be eager to hire them. After all, these folks will have degrees in science legally equivalent to those of of other science degree granting institutions.
Just get a few of these folks to tie up regulations based on use of science required to establish sound public policy and you could avoid all sorts of costly regulations even though failing to adopt science-based regulations would produce catastrophic results. Likewise, insert them into discussions of the value of "faith-based initiatives" and religious based study can be granted public money by arguing that its just support for "science", while science budgets elsewhere can be cut to "reduce the budgetary impact" of such grants.
If you may not have noticed, large swaths of media conglomerates are loading with "journalists" bearing journalism degrees even though their "news" is often largely fact free. Such persons are useful to the bottom line and hidden agendas. They are hired because they can be used to say anything the owners think is in their interest, yet pass it off as "news" because "journalists" say its news.
Why don't fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I wonder if my credits from the Unarius Academy of Science will transfer to Texas schools?